Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming II

You know what I mean. That seems like a bit of a pedantic point.

So you don't think any of these are a viable option regardless of any technological advances we might make?

Again, I was talking about the future potential (due to technological advances) of renewable energy.

 

That doesn't mean it won't change in the future. This is bad logic.

Not necessarily.

I think you are also getting confused. We are discussing the future potential of renewable energy due to technological advances.

 

Wind turbines have been around for decades. What makes you think the price would lower now?


So what renewable energy? The ones like Ethanol that have raised the price of food and made ethanol as expensive as oil? Or maybe wind and solar that can never stand alone ? What source can replace oil?

 

Rising energy prices, better tech, means wind turbines are more viable.

 

Show where people's bills have went down. There is no gain without government subsidies which means we are gaining nothing

Even Pickins found out it does not work

 

I guess you're the one who's not keeping up. I guess you never read about the multiple debunkings of that study that appeared soon afterwards. I guess you never realized that the study was so flawed that the editor of the journal that published it admitted that it shouldn't have been published in the first place. I guess you never realized that said editor resigned in disgrace.

I guess you only read Newsmax and listen to Fox News. I guess that's why you're not keeping up.

 

Your denial is not debunking. The study shows the IPCC models are wrong

 

Spencer and Brasswell (2011) has been debunked by Dessler 2011, and on completely separate grounds has been debunked by Trenberth, Fasullo, and Abraham 2011. The editor of Remote Sensing resigned after blasting Spencer's press-release politicization of the paper -- agreeing in the process that the paper shouldn't have been published.

I guess you're the one not keeping up.

 

Which scientists do we believe

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/

http://mayrantandrave.com/2011/08/10/global-warmers-not-happy-with-the-scientific-method/

What you call debunked is GW scientists defending their lies

 

What you call "scientist" is a blogger for a financial magazine.

 

The point is that 'renewable' energy is non-existent. That is just a buzz-word meant to fool folks into thinking there is some great, infinite energy source or sources.

I can't see increasing the output of these energy producers to the degree where they would even come close to oil, coal or natural gas and be as easily transportable.

I think nuclear power plants would be more than adequate to supply all our stationary power needs. We could close down the coal-fired plants and maybe even ease the environmental footprint of our current hydro-electric facilities.

OK but, the future ain't here yet and viable alternate fuel is not a reality. When there is a source of fuel/energy that rivals oil, gas or coal, the market will change our infrastructure. Until then, 'renewable' energy is just a pipe-dream and we need to stop trying to stifle the flow of our most important resource....oil.

 

Yet what you call scientists is government employees. You seem to not want to address the fact he puts GW propagandists double standard hacks in their place

 

(((((((((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Blogger = anyone who is internet savvy enough to write approximately one sentence and post it on the internet - could be a PHD fellow could be a paid shill for the oil companies - WE CANNOT TELL. They write OPINION pieces - not referenced and usually full of cherry picked data at best - at worst full of the most hilariously ridiculous bull(*)(*)(*)(*) that ever disgraced bandwidth. There is no quality assurance because no one really cares if the bloggers are right or wrong

Institute website like NASA - HAS to accurate because their reputation is riding on this information.

So who would you rather believe - the guy who can tell whatever lies he likes or the one who has to be right first time and every time?

 

The prices won't magically lower. What I'm saying is that the prices will drop as our technology advances and the turbines become more efficient.

I'm not an expert and don't know what sort of tech is currently being worked on so it is impossible for me to say.

 

Address the facts and tell me why it is wrong.

 

Indeed, supported by grants that are given to support the 'climate' industry. As long as we are in 'danger' of AGW the grant-money will keep flowing.

With the main stream media firmly ensconced in the environmentalists collective anal canals, and the climate 'circle jerk' peer review process that calls skeptics 'deniers,' scientists who blog may be the only good resource for objective points of view.

 

It has been decades. how many more decades will it take?

One link was NASA and it says we may be in a cooling period

 

Yes, but the point is pedantic.

So you don't think renewables will ever be efficient enough no matter what huge leaps we might make in technology? I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. I'm sure technology in a hundred years or so will blow our minds.

For the third time, I am talking about the future potential of renewables. Whether the future is here or not is completely irrelevant.

 

I don't know. Again, all I'm saying is that the prices will drop as technology advances and becomes more efficient. Why do you guys have so hard a time comprehending such a simple, logical statement?

 

These cost to much to make and transport. The price will not come down. Decades shows us the price will stay very high

 

So what is your alternative plan for when the price skyrockets as the oil runs out? Sniping from the sidelines?

 

Even if the price hasn't changed much in recent decades that in no way means they will never drop. If you cannot see why your logic is poor then it is not worth my time responding.

 

When will it run out? New oil is found every year. Peak oil is as much a scam as Global warming


http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/no-peak-in-oil-before-2030-study-says/

 

My logic is correct. There has been no drop in price and there is no sign it will drop. Your fairy tale has no basis

 

There was an article about some kind of Russian ship getting caught in article ice that was unusually thick in the area they were fishing. Anyone really d about that.